The "only" version?

[HopefulNChrist]

Let's start off with defining "doctrine" as anything that's taught.(Unfortunately, KJVO IS taught in some congregations.)

Then, let's define "KJVO" (K ing J ames Version O nly). It's the belief that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

Now, let's define "myth", It's a widely-held, but false idea or notion, entirely man-made.

Thus, we have "the KJVO myth".

The KJVO myth is entirely-false, and is a man-made lie. Its origin is posted in the "Bible versions/translations" forum.

Thanks for helping me understand what you generally know about the KJVO myth.

May I ask why or how they came to that conclusion about the KJV being the only valid English Bible translation? What is the basis for that claim? In keeping the testimonies of the Son without dropping verses that speaks of His deity? is it changing the meaning of His words that runs contrary to other truths in the scripture in the N.T. ?

It does not have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT; therefore it CANNOT be true. MEN made up KJVO without any AUTHORITY behind it, as we Christians believe Scripture to be our highest earthly authority in all matters of faith/worship, and the sole source for all our intel about GOD. Some folks wrongly claim Psalm 12:6-7 to be "proof" verses for KJVO, but WHERE DO THOSE VERSES MENTION THE KJV???????? And for that matter, WHERE DOES THE KJV MENTION ITSELF??????????

God simply DOES NOT SUPPORT KJVO, and by teaching it, people are ADDING to God's precepts and commands, something He expressly forbids.

Thus, Salty, anyone who's teaching the KJVO myth is telling a lie, whether they realize it or not, as the whole KJVO myth is nothing but a lie!

You do know why the lost books are not considered actual scripture, because the lost books run contrary to scripture?

When anti-KJV ers admit that not all Bible say the same thing, then how does one prove the truth?

1 John 2: 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

In according to scripture by how no scripture can be a lie in running against the other scripture in that accepted 66 Books of the Bible that can cause someone to go astray or strengthen them in their wickedness, is how you can prove with His help, which Bible version is the one to rely on.

If that standard was good enough in dismissing the lost books as NOT scripture, then the same can be applied to modern day translations in proving they have kept or NOT kept the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by.

Is that not a reasonable thing to do with Him in proving which Bible keeps the testimonies of the Son and not decline from that testimony as well as not changing His words that would run contrary to scripture even in that same modern Bible?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Baptist Board has five official definitions of KJO.

IMHO - a Strict KJO means that the only version that is God approved is the KJ.

I would say that no one can really tell someone else that Bible is God approved. God would have to confirm that to that believer.

Otherwise you are KJ- prefered.

I can cite why I am KJ preferred. You can only inquire with Him at that throne of grace " if " my preference can show basis as God approved and why it is only approved since no lie can be of the truth when it comes to scripture.

 

[Logos1560]

Salty, respectfully, that is not the KJV position that I hold to nor other KJVO people that I know.. The way I view it, the KJV is the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language, I cannot speak about other languages, and while there were English translations prior to the KJV and after the KJV, my position is that the KJV is the most accurate and faithful English translation.

Though I suppose people will continue to beat down the strawman over and over again as if KJV people believed there was no word of God prior to 1611, there were good English translations before 1611, and of course, there were the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well as other Ancient translations in other languages. But this fact does not negate the KJVO position if we define it as the KJV being the best and most faithful English translation. If you have something that is the best and most faithful, why would any serious student of the Bible use something else?

Perhaps your position is a straw-man or is based on mere assumption that involves use of the fallacy of begging the question since you have not proven that the KJV is actually "the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language" compared to any specific editions of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

You have not demonstrated and proven that the KJV has the best, most faithful, and most accurate rendering of every verse of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. You may be assuming your own biased opinion, but you do not prove it to be true.

Based on just or sound comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, it has been demonstrated that another English translation sometimes has a more accurate and better translation of the original languages than the KJV has.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

The KJV has a MAJOR GOOF in saying "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. This ignores all the evils done for other purposes, of which suicide bombing is a clear example.

That is like taking a verse out of context in making a vain complaint against the KJV. At the link below is comparing 1 Timothy 6:10 in KJV, ESV, NASB, AMP & NIV with each other as a testimony that most modern Bibles say the same thing.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV;ESV;NASB;AMP;NIV - For the love of money is the root of - Bible Gateway

So are all other Bible versions ignoring all other evils in the world like suicide bombings? No. You took that verse out of context of the message being given about believers in their walk with the Lord in relations to desiring to be rich rather than putting their trust in the Lord.

And it's saying "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13 has caused a huge amount of protest & argument over the use of capital punishment.

I can point out goofs in the KJV for hours.

No. Apparently, you cannot, without pointing out the same "goofs" as you claim them to be when they can be found in all modern Bibles.

As for the death penalty, the government does not bear the sword in vain as it is used to deter evil. That applies to war & capital punishment.

Romans 13:1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

All Bibles has that.

Christians are not to kill for the Lord because of His words here.

John 16:1These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended. 2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

But in the service of their government for deterring evil in the world and in the nation, they are allowed to kill.[/QUOTE]

 

[just-want-peace]

I remember back in the early ‘50s hearing a preacher on radio claiming that the KJ was “error free”, with the possible exception of a misplacet/omitted comma , or a period left out, or a name not captilized — ad infinitum!!
He bracketed each possible error with; “There may be ********, but I doubt it” , going thru the list of “errors”with the same pre & post qualifiers for each one.

Never heard of “KJO” until this long soliloque re: same. Didn’t make sense then, doesn’t now. Can accept KJ preferred, but not KJO!

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Perhaps your position is a straw-man or is based on mere assumption that involves use of the fallacy of begging the question since you have not proven that the KJV is actually "the best and most accurate translation of the Bible in the English language" compared to any specific editions of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

You have not demonstrated and proven that the KJV has the best, most faithful, and most accurate rendering of every verse of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. You may be assuming your own biased opinion, but you do not prove it to be true.

Based on just or sound comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages, it has been demonstrated that another English translation sometimes has a more accurate and better translation of the original languages than the KJV has.

Perhaps it is a strawman. Prove it then.

What does all the Bible say about how the Holy Spirit is limited in how He speaks in John 16:13?

Then compare the Bible versions with Romans 8:26-27. Do they all say the same thing or does the KJV testifies that His intercessions are silent by how even His groanings cannot be uttered? Do some of those that err, also include a grammatical error in Romans 8:27 by switching out the "he" with "the Spirit" in the conclusion of that verse when that verse is about the Son Who searches our hearts as confirmed in Hebrews 4:12-16 and thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit as it is the will of God having the man Christ Jesus as the only Mediator between God and men 1 Timothy 2:5 ?

Scripture cannot run against scripture and yet the KJV maintained that truth in the scripture for why "itself" was used instead of "Himself" because the Holy Spirit does not make known His intercessions by Himself, but the mind of the Holy Spirit serves as a mean by which His silent intercessions are made known to the Father at that throne of grace where Jesus Christ is at.

So that means the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues as a means for uttering His own intercessions.

That means modern Bibles error in Romans 8:26-27 causes believers to doubt that Jesus really meant that in John 16:13 in their own modern Bible they are using.

No lie can be of the truth, right? That is how the lost books were considered not scripture. Even anti-KJVers admit that not all Bibles are saying the same thing. So is it a strawman to prove which one loves Him enough to keep the truth in His words ?

 

[HopefulNChrist]

I remember back in the early ‘50s hearing a preacher on radio claiming that the KJ was “error free”, with the possible exception of a misplacet/omitted comma , or a period left out, or a name not captilized — ad infinitum!!
He bracketed each possible error with; “There may be ********, but I doubt it” , going thru the list of “errors”with the same pre & post qualifiers for each one.

Never heard of “KJO” until this long soliloque re: same. Didn’t make sense then, doesn’t now. Can accept KJ preferred, but not KJO!

Maybe if you ask them what errors the KJV was free of that is supposed to stand it apart from all other modern Bibles, you would not get lost in the mediocre that the KJO went into.

Read post #46 before this post ( being reposted below for you ) to see an error that most of not all Bible versions has that supports apostasy, because believers are going astray seeking after a baptism of the holy Ghost apart from salvation by that sign of tongues which never comes with interpretation and assumed as a prayer language of the Holy Ghost.

What does all the Bible say about how the Holy Spirit is limited in how He speaks in John 16:13?

Then compare the Bible versions with Romans 8:26-27. Do they all say the same thing or does the KJV testifies that His intercessions are silent by how even His groanings cannot be uttered? Do some of those that err, also include a grammatical error in Romans 8:27 by switching out the "he" with "the Spirit" in the conclusion of that verse when that verse is about the Son Who searches our hearts as confirmed in Hebrews 4:12-16 and thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit as it is the will of God having the man Christ Jesus as the only Mediator between God and men 1 Timothy 2:5 ?

Scripture cannot run against scripture and yet the KJV maintained that truth in the scripture for why "itself" was used instead of "Himself" because the Holy Spirit does not make known His intercessions by Himself, but the mind of the Holy Spirit serves as a mean by which His silent intercessions are made known to the Father at that throne of grace where Jesus Christ is at.

So that means the Holy Spirit cannot use God's gift of tongues as a means for uttering His own intercessions.

That means modern Bibles error in Romans 8:26-27 causes believers to doubt that Jesus really meant that in John 16:13 in their own modern Bible they are using.

No lie can be of the truth, right ( 1 John 2:20-21 )? That is how the lost books were considered not scripture. Even anti-KJVers admit that not all Bibles are saying the same thing. So is the KJV error free in that regards to prove which version loves Him enough to keep the truth in His words so believers can use the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words in the KJV? Only the Lord can help you decide the truth on this matter since we are in the latter days where faith is hard to find.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

But most KJVOs keep right on telling it when its falsehood is clearly pointed out to them, such as that paragon of erudition you quoted from FB. Thus, "uninformed or misinformed" becomes "lying".

Would that include making false statements of the KJV as an argument against the KJV that can be found in all Bible versions?

You do remember your later post voicing your angst against the KJV for 1 Timothy 6:10, right?

The KJV has a MAJOR GOOF in saying "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10. This ignores all the evils done for other purposes, of which suicide bombing is a clear example.

That is like taking a verse out of context in making a vain complaint against the KJV. At the link below is comparing 1 Timothy 6:10 in KJV, ESV, NASB, AMP, & NIV with each other as a testimony that most modern Bibles say the same thing.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV;ESV;NASB;AMP;NIV - For the love of money is the root of - Bible Gateway

So are all other Bible versions ignoring all other evils in the world like suicide bombings? No. You took that verse out of context of the message being given about believers in their walk with the Lord in relations to desiring to be rich rather than putting their trust in the Lord.

So is that lying? I believe you got swept up in that anti-KJVOnlyism fervor that you began agreeing with everything against KJVOnlyism without actually discerning the merits of those complaints.​

 

[Logos1560]

The problem with modern bibles originating from Alexandria documents

Perhaps there could be a problem with your assumed accusation against other present-day English Bibles besides the KJV.

Can you prove that all modern bibles actually originate from Alexandria documents?

 

[Logos1560]

The wisdom from God above is without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:16) while the claimed human wisdom in KJV-only reasoning shows partiality to the inconsistent textual-criticism decisions, Bible-revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics/priests/men in 1611 and shows hypocrisy by refusing to apply the same exact measures/standards to the making of the KJV that it would attempt to apply to the making of other English Bible translations.

The KJV is an English Bible translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV.

 

[tyndale1946]

Would that include making false statements of the KJV as an argument against the KJV that can be found in all Bible versions?

You do remember your later post voicing your angst against the KJV for 1 Timothy 6:10, right?

That is like taking a verse out of context in making a vain complaint against the KJV. At the link below is comparing 1 Timothy 6:10 in KJV, ESV, NASB, AMP, & NIV with each other as a testimony that most modern Bibles say the same thing.

1 Timothy 6:10 KJV;ESV;NASB;AMP;NIV - For the love of money is the root of - Bible Gateway

So are all other Bible versions ignoring all other evils in the world like suicide bombings? No. You took that verse out of context of the message being given about believers in their walk with the Lord in relations to desiring to be rich rather than putting their trust in the Lord.

So is that lying? I believe you got swept up in that anti-KJVOnlyism fervor that you began agreeing with everything against KJVOnlyism without actually discerning the merits of those complaints.​

Believe it or not I did not know what the KJVO controversy was till I joined here 18 years ago... From the age of seven to the age of fifty seven those of us in my church and the surrounding churches we had fellowship with, used the KJV... Carried, studied and preached from the KJV... Every preacher that graced our pulpit used it and sometime broke out his own dog eared KJV and used it.

Now I can understand why there is such a fight... Personally I won't read your version and don't expect you to read mine but I'm not going to hang it over your head if you don't... I know looking at the practices and by laws of our church in our articles of Faith we use the KJV... You use in your church what you will and allow others to use in their church what they will, last time I checked its a free country... Check out the history of the church down throughout the ages and their were times it was not... I'm thankful to the Lord and feel really blessed I'm permitted to read the KJV I have... What you brethren must remember is this... There are some countries where no matter what translation you quote or study or read from it is forbidden!... So the next time anyone decides to bring up this subject which by the way has be hashed, rehashed and rehashed since I've been here, would you be willing to be put in prison or forfeit your life no matter what translation you read?... I didn't think so!... Brother Glen

 

[Salty]

But most KJVOs keep right on telling it when its falsehood is clearly pointed out to them, such as that paragon of erudition you quoted from FB. Thus, "uninformed or misinformed" becomes "lying".

#4 1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
link: Definition of LIE

Key phrase is "know...to be untrue"
Therefore if you are passing on info that you believe is true - you are NOT lying.

Granted - a person should dig into all the facts - but many of us are very biased in our belief.

 

[JonC]

IMHO there is no such thing as a KJO advocate apart from that person being a heretic. The reason I say this is although many KJO people deny the heresy of double inspiration their theology itself demands it.

 

[HopefulNChrist]

Perhaps there could be a problem with your assumed accusation against other present-day English Bibles besides the KJV.

Can you prove that all modern bibles actually originate from Alexandria documents?

Well, those that oppose the KJV usually target the Textus Receptus as originating from Antioch while making the argument that "the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts" for documents originating from areas around and from Alexandria.

But other than that, no, I cannot prove that all modern Bibles actually originate from Alexandrian documents, being how I do not have actual access to such documents to prove it that is the actual source for their translation of each modern Bible.

I do know that how they translate Romans 8:26-27 does lead me to believe the anti-KJVers that the modern Bibles do share the same source document, even though its errant influence has even reached the 1599 Geneva Bible in its marginal notes when it obviously runs against what was written plainly in scripture of that 1599 Geneva Bible that even the groanings of the Holy Spirit cannot be uttered as it is silent as His intercessions are..

So let us look at the end result of the translation by how it does not run against the truth in scripture in that same Bible version. If it does, and yet the KJV does not, then surely you can see my preference for using only the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

 

[Logos1560]

Well, those that oppose the KJV usually target the Textus Receptus as originating from Antioch while making the argument that "the oldest manuscripts are the best manuscripts" for documents originating from areas around and from Alexandria.

the anti-KJVers

Do you try to misrepresent believers who may disagree with a modern KJV-only view as supposedly opposing the KJV or as supposedly being anti-KJV?

Disagreeing with KJV-only claims is not the same thing as opposing the KJV as what it actually is.

I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I read and accept it as what it actually is and as what its own translators asserted that it was. I merely disagree with those who try to make the KJV into something that it has not been proven to be.

It is KJV-only authors who try to claim that the Textus Receptus originates from Antioch. KJV-only advocates tend to ignore the truth that all the sources used in the making of the KJV did not originate from Antioch. The makers of the KJV made some use of non-TR sources such as the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in making their revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

 

[JonC]

Do you try to misrepresent believers who may disagree with a modern KJV-only view as supposedly opposing the KJV or as supposedly being anti-KJV?

Disagreeing with KJV-only claims is not the same thing as opposing the KJV as what it actually is.

I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I read and accept it as what it actually is and as what its own translators asserted that it was. I merely disagree with those who try to make the KJV into something that it has not been proven to be.

It is KJV-only authors who try to claim that the Textus Receptus originates from Antioch. KJV-only advocates tend to ignore the truth that all the sources used in the making of the KJV did not originate from Antioch. The makers of the KJV made some use of non-TR sources such as the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in making their revision of the pre-1611 English Bibles.

It is also often ignored that the KJV translators were very much steeped in Catholic doctrine (although reformed to an extent). Many KJVO folk I know don't seem to realize these were Anglicans (prior to strong Puritan influence).

 

[HankD]

It is also often ignored that the KJV translators were very much steeped in Catholic doctrine (although reformed to an extent). Many KJVO folk I know don't seem to realize these were Anglicans (prior to strong Puritan influence).

And were originally differentiated from Roman Catholics by being called Anglo Catholics.

 

[Rippon]

#4 1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
link: Definition of LIE

Key phrase is "know...to be untrue"
Therefore if you are passing on info that you believe is true - you are NOT lying.

Notice under lie as a noun 1)b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer.

 

[Salty]

Notice under lie as a noun 1)b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer.

I will err on the side of caution and not call a person a liar, until I know where they are coming from.

 

[Logos1560]

, there were good English translations before 1611

Do you consider the 1560 Geneva Bible to have been a good English translation?

The common people of the English-speaking world accepted the 1560 Geneva Bible as the word of God in English for over 50 years [several KJV-only authors acknowledge that it was accepted for around 100 years]. The makers of the KJV even acknowledged that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible were the word of God. It was the Geneva Bible that is usually quoted as the word of God in English in the preface to the 1611 KJV. Several of the KJV translators continued to preach from the Geneva Bible for years after 1611.

The makers of the KJV made many changes, including some significant ones and some doctrinal ones, to the 1560 Geneva Bible, this previous accepted standard for the word of God in English. For one example, renderings in the 1560 Geneva Bible that were understood to teach Presbyterian church government or congregational church government were changed in the 1611 KJV to be more favorable to the Church of England's episcopal church government views.

Would you apply the same exact measures to the 1560 Geneva Bible as you would apply to the NKJV?

Are you aware that the NKJV translators kept or followed a good number of the improvements that the makers of the KJV made to the Geneva Bible?

Would it be just to praise the 1560 Geneva Bible as a good English translation and to condemn the NKJV, which can justly be considered better overall than the Geneva if the same measures/standards are applied to both?